Steve

I have heard of some and Ive also experienced a problem when I was breeding and chipping Ragdoll cats. About 1 in 5 that I chipped would come up in a huge boil type thing and expel the chip .Even after one was chucked out we chipped again and the second one went the same way. I know they were talking about chipping dementia patients some time ago and it was stopped due to possible side effects and I sort of reckon if they are saying there is enough risk to not chip people then there may be enough reason to not to HAVE to chip pets . However, like you Im not prepared to break the law and stop chipping either. Im curious to know how they seriously think they CAN police this.

That might be a bit harsh also We don't know what the owner is feeling about having to give up their dogs. Sometimes there is not much choice - everyone has changing circumstances in their lives and nobody can guarantee where they will be in 5-10 years (including breeders). Of course it might be - judging someone - anyone before you know the circumstances always has that potential. What Im saying is why blame one over the other before you know the facts?

This one is about one of the lawsuits http://www.naturalnews.com/030108_microchips_animals.html (NaturalNews) Many veterinarians recommend them, and most animal shelters require them. Identification microchips injected into the necks of cats and dogs are touted as useful in recovering lost pets because the devices store owner and medical information. But are they safe? A new lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc., maker of the HomeAgain pet microchip, says they are not, noting that they can cause cancer to develop in pets. Featured at www.ChipMeNot.org, a website launched to raise awareness about the harm caused to animals by microchips, the lawsuit alleges that Merck's HomeAgain pet microchip induces cancerous tumors in pets. According to the suit, the defendant's cat developed cancer after getting a chip implant, and according to reports, other animals have gotten cancer after getting chipped as well. "Based on the alarming number of microchip-induced cancers we're discovering, I predict this lawsuit will be just the tip of the iceberg," said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and expert on side effects associated with implantable microchips. "Merck and organizations that advocate pet chipping should take this lawsuit seriously and start warning pet owners of the risk of microchip-induced cancer." According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, potential health risks associated with implantable microchips include "adverse tissue reaction". Based on data from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, this can include "swelling", "infection", "abscesses", and "tumors". Albrecht presented a paper on the subject called "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006" (http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf) at the June conference of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers that documents the increasing number of animals being harmed by microchips. Currently, there is no repository of data on adverse events associated with microchips in the U.S., but Albrecht organization, CASPIAN, is filling that void by compiling such information and making it available to the public. To learn more about the dangers of animal microchips, visit: www.ChipMeNot.org

This one will start you off.http://www.rense.com/general79/micro.htm Microchip Cancer Report From Katherine Albrecht [email protected] 11-20-7 CASPIAN Sets record straight after misleading claims by HomeAgain and VeriChip implant manufacturers. A new paper titled "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990­2006" has been released today by CASPIAN. The full, 48-page paper provides a definitive review of the academic literature showing a causal link between implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip transponders and cancer in laboratory rodents and dogs. In addition, a brief, four-page synopsis of the full report is being made available. Eleven articles previously published in toxicology and pathology journals are evaluated in the report. In six of the articles, between 0.8% and 10.2% of laboratory mice and rats developed malignant tumors around or adjacent to the microchips, and several researchers suggested the actual tumor rate may have been higher. Two additional articles reported microchip-related cancer in dogs. In almost all cases, the malignant tumors, typically sarcomas, arose at the site of the implants and grew to surround and fully encase the devices. In several cases the tumors also metastasized or spread to other parts of the animals. Public revelation of a casual link between microchipping and cancer in animals has prompted widespread public concern over the safety of implantable microchips. The story was first broken to the public in September through an article written by Associated Press Reporter Todd Lewan. Prior to the AP story, the journal articles were completely unknown outside of small academic circles. "The AP did a superb job informing the public of the existence of these journal articles," said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a leading privacy expert and long-time VeriChip opponent who authored the new paper. "Unfortunately," Dr. Albrecht added, "a lot of misinformation about the cancer research has circulated since Mr. Lewan's article was published. I wrote the report to set the record straight." The animal-microchip study findings were so compelling that one of Mr. Lewan's sources, Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was quoted as saying, "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members." Nevertheless, representatives of the chipping industry have made inaccurate public statements about the research findings in an effort to confuse the public. Scott Silverman, CEO of the VeriChip Corporation which makes the controversial VeriChip human implant, recently provided inaccurate information to Time Magazine. Mr. Silverman is quoted as saying that none of the tumors found in mice in a 2006 French study were malignant. In fact, not only were the tumors malignant sarcomas, but most of the afflicted animals died prematurely as a result of the microchip-associated tumors. In addition, Destron Fearing, makers of the HomeAgain pet implant, dismissed a finding of fibrosarcoma--a highly lethal cancer--as 'benign' in a recent report. A fibrosarcoma is a type of sarcoma, a malignant tumor of soft tissue that connects, supports or surrounds other structures and organs of the body. Dr. Timothy Jennings, an expert on implant-induced cancers in humans, said he was "not aware of any nosology incorporating an entity of 'benign fibrosarcoma'" and agreed that "any tumor classified as sarcoma should be viewed as malignant." "Either VeriChip and the makers of HomeAgain actually don't understand the difference between a benign fibroma and a malignant fibrosarcoma," noted Dr. Albrecht, "or they're deliberately lying to the public. Either way, it's clear they can't be trusted. We hope our new report will set the record straight." The report includes a one- to three-page writeup on each of the original studies. In addition to a detailed review of the academic literature, the report contains recommendations for patients, pet owners, veterinarians, and policy makers, including the following: (1) Further microchipping of humans should be immediately discontinued; (2) Implanted patients should be informed in writing of the research findings and offered a procedure for microchip removal; and (3) Policy makers should reverse all animal microchipping mandates. As part of its public awareness campaign, CASPIAN will be issuing copies of the new report to leading policy and decision makers. The full 48-page report and four-page synopsis are also immediately available for public download at http://www.antichips.com/cancer/ =======================================

No it wasnt sarcasm - its true

Try PM now

Yes this true and a huge concern. Also very cruel on smallier breeds to get such a huge neddle so young. Unfair and a very un thought laws.its not going to help at all. lt hasnt been passed yet. So maybe letters to Ted telling him OF the concerns EXAMPLE {age being quite young as most pups leave at 8 weeks old} Also dog and owners ID been exposed and the risks it could have. Maybe he may reconsider some facts? Anythings worth a try or we may not even own dogs in the very near future That argument will take you no where they put microchips in tiny little lizards etc It hurts a bit but if they let puppies and kitten have their organs yanked out to stop them being able to be used for breeding we are hardly going to have a case against a chip needle. however, it appears there is loads of science to prove microchips cause cancer and because dogs are our property and we are being told at law that we have no choice some who have animals which have developed cancer which science says is caused by the chips are mounting a class action against councils. I love the way "should animals have rights " is chopped and changed to suit the moment. One minute we compare them to children and we want them to be treated accordingly until it doesnt suit some management plan. Then regardless of whether its best for the dog to be vaccinated, or desexed or microchipped those rights go right out the window. So do human property rights for that matter. Sometmes someone needs to consider how these things affect living animals and their longevity and quality of life rather than focusing on what they can do to prevent them being dumped. Seriously do they really think anyone other than legal breeders are going to chip their puppies anyway.Do they honestly think that when a breeder drives a couple of hundred kilometres to sell their litters to a dealer in another state that they wont do it now ? Do they think people wont buy their puppies from breeders all over the country? Mandatory chipping came in for NSW in 1997 and still majority of dogs coming into pounds are not chipped and its impossible to police. Do they have any idea how difficult it is in that state to do the right thing and apply for a DA and become legal ? Where is the reward for people who are wanting to do the right thing ? Time will tell but if youthink you can be exempted in some way because you are registered with a state CC better rethink that.

WA does the same thing. I was told it's a safeguard against lawsuits. Some people either aren't told or don't listen to breeders re Limited. Then the CA gets dragged into disputes because they wanted a pup they could breed or show. I agree that the safeguard is usually unnecessary. But it probably prevents many disputes. Much easier to simply say so onthe receipt and/ or the contract .

Breeders just like everyone else have things happen to them they cant predict which affects their ability to take a dog back. Breeders lost everything in floods, bushfires, they grow older and they move house,they loose their jobs,they get sick and its simply not possible now to predict how taking an older dog back will have an impact and why it may not be in the best interests of the dog. Ideally every breeder would be able to guarantee that they could do this or at least help in finding a new home etc and sometimes there seems to be no good reason as to why they wouldnt but life isnt that simple and to expect someone can take a dog and in several years time because they decide they have to dump their dogs that the breeder will still be in the same position they were back then is a bit un realistic. Funny that the owner appears to be off the hook and the focus is on the breeder not being interested even though its them deciding to throw away their family.

So whats the problem The goods were not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased. Fairtrading will step in if the breeder doesnt refund replace or repair . Who cares if the breeder was reluctant? Thems the breaks.

Considering what they have as standards [ laws ] and what is basically optional - Id say its the easiest one Ive seen. Where you have a situation where its only a guideline that puppies should be 8 weeks old and should be vaccinated and vet checked before they are sold and many of the other things I consider should be laws rather than guidelines looks to me that its a waste of energy and its difficult to see how it will stop any dogs suffering any more than they do now. .if the aim is to bring all breeders into even the basics - I reckon they missed their chance.

Standards S20 Dogs must receive appropriate environmental enrichment. S21 Dogs must have an opportunity for direct contact socialisation with other dogs or humans at least once per day. S22 For premises required to be registered, records must be kept detailing the environmental enrichment provided. While you're reading it remember the standards are the law and the guidelines are just that - guidelines. Ive only looked at the standards so far and will go back to guidelines later when I have some time.

Our information is that she wasnt selling them very often if at all but was hoarding. This is a major problem and they are every bit as hard to spot as any illegal puppy farmer.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/rspca-seizes-cats-from-adelaide-breeder/story-e6frf7jx-1226175202523 THE RSPCA has seized 96 cats and 28 kittens from a backyard breeder in Adelaide who it says was keeping the animals in appalling conditions. The RSPCA said the cats were suffering from a range of untreated conditions including fight wound abscesses, infectious diarrhoea, skin diseases, poor body weight and poor socialisation. Almost half of the adult cats also tested positive to feline aids and chief inspector Simon Richards said it was highly likely the suburban Chandlers Hill breeder was selling cats already infected. Chief Veterinarian Brad Ward said feline aids was an incurable and infectious disease that was easily spread between cats through contact with saliva and bite wounds. "While there is no cure, cats (with the disease) can live for many years, especially if they are given prompt medical attention when necessary and with supporting care," Dr Ward said.

There has already been a fairly lengthy period of consultation and its only a couple of days away. Cant see why it wont go thriugh because its not touching commercial breeders and only addresses llegal puppy farms - remembering what the definition is of puppy farms the government uses. The microchip thing has been presented over and over in fact we have put in at least half a dozen submissions on this. There is much there which affects privacy issues and some of the big money in the mix has a vested interest in keeping breeder names out under the argument that its a double shuffle - more red tape which they argue is not required and will result in people not transferring ownership,more admin for councils etc. You cant just go online and change your details from one owner to another it has to be done manually by each council. You have to remember that in NSW all of this has been mandatory for about 13 years and breeders have worked out numerous ways of getting around it and even one council to another has different requirements for who the chip is registered to and how you can change it from one owner to another or breeder to buyer. Its never, ever been policed ,one state registry isnt linked to any other and breeders moving puppies interstate especially to places where they dont even have a chip reader have long given up on chipping them at all. People selling to agents or re sellers have always sold them and the pet shop has chipped into the new owner name rather than have it in the breeder name, then pet shop and new owner same with agents such as those operating for overseas pet shops .Pup is usually chipped into the new owners name. The whole put the chip number in ads thing sounds good but much will depend on how its worded. Are they going to make it illegal for newspapers and such to accept an ad without chips or is it illegal for Victorian breeders to advertise without chips or both ? Who is going to sift through all of the ads to check whether a chip is correct and even if its not misakes such as typos are made all the time. Who will police it and investigate it ? Where is it necessary to have the chip numbers - on their own website, in the paper, on internet sites,on supermarket walls ? With mobile phone numbers how will they pick up who is in Victoria ? Are websites such as dogz going to have to ensure all Victorian breeders have chip numbers before they place an ad especially where in some states no one chips anything and its not mandatory. What about when a litter is advertised - which is usually the case are all of the chip numbers required ? What if a breeder advertises one pup with one chip number but sells another . Puppy farmers now are vaccinating one male and one female out of a a litter and photo copying them to go out with the rest of the litter - how hard is it going to be to chip one pup advertise it and sell the rest of the litter without a chip or use a chip from another pup and say oops typo? When they introduced mandatory requirements for licence numbers in ads on the gold coast 8 months later not one ad in their local paper had a licence number - but only those living in that shire had to have them and people from anywhere can advertise. When the shire was asked how come they werent ensuring their breeders were using the numbers the answer is - we cant police it. Think it through how much time will it take for someone to check which shire a breeder lives in to see whether they needed to have a licence number in the ad, Ths all assumes puppy farmers will sell via ads and the really rotten ones sell to agents who pick em up ,load em into a car boot and ship em out all over the place anyway. Pet shops keep saying they dont buy from puppy farmers - no one believes them but they say they buy from legal commercial breeders the real illegal puppy farmers dont advertise and dont sell to pet shops anyway. Ill be happy if it allows the RSPCA to shut down people who keep their dogs in rotten conditions but registered breeders need to know that on the whole they have been operating illegally and the government definition isnt about motivation or numbers .Its about substandard conditions which are set as standard by mandatory codes . Some are cheering because they think this is about stopping large scale commercial breeding which isnt operating under approvals from their councils and not following mandatory codes for breeding dogs but its also about any breeder regardless of how many they breed who do not have the necessary approvals from counicls and not operating under mandatory codes. RSPCA has permission to police council laws and mandatory codes and registered breeders need to ensure they are not doing anything illegal. This is an email conversation I had with a council official in Victoria and it is a heads up for all breeders including Vicdogs members who have had more than 5 dogs because if you do you are illegal and if you are not keeping them according to mandatory codes including vaccinating them by a vet every year ,complying with housing requirements etc you are keeping them in substandard conditions - life could get very messy. This is an email conversation I had with a council official in Victoria and if you have any doubts ring your councils and ask what you need to be doing to be legal. A council in Victoria I refer to your email requesting information on Council's requirements for dog breeding establishments. Firstly, I need to point out that it is largely dependent on zoning. In a residential zone, the most number of animals which can be kept for breeding is 5. In the rural living and farming zones, up to five animals can be kept for breeding without needing planning approval. For more than 5 animals, a planning permit will be required. An application should show how the breeding establishment will be organised and also be accompanied by plans showing any special buildings and runs which may be utilised as part of the breeding operation. Me. It seems that many Vic dogs members have been breaking planning laws for a long time then because they were of the belief that if they had less than 10 fertile dogs they didn't need to worry about permits.[of any kind] to breed their dogs. So what happens to the Vicdogs breeders who have [say] 9 in a residential zone ? Are they able to apply for a DA for more and assuming they can pass the criteria do what they are doing legally or is it no more than five in a residential zone no matter what? Them. Unfortunately, the planning controls absolutely limit the maximum number of dogs used for a breeding enterprise to 5 in the residential zone. In other zones, it is more a case of assessing the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area, which is a function of the intensity of use and the number of affected dwellings. So it stands to reason that a property in the farming zone would be the best chance for a large breeding proposal. With smaller enterprises, such as your suggestions of up to 10 dogs, there would be less impact, but the restriction to a max of 5 in the residential zones still applies.

I just wonder about the word "Illegal" ...as I doubt the greater majority of these horrible farms NOW in operation would not be legally registered businesses.........and therefore will be continuing as usual. If this is the case.....then nothing has changed...has it?! Heaps has changed but not for them.

Not really very well thought out is it. but then you know the drill why would a good breeder need to advertise anyway ? However, a couple of points - those who have puppies available all the time can still advertise their kennel and sell via email or phone without chip numbers anyway as long as they arent advertising specific puppies . Large commercial kennels are advantaged over smaller breeders who do need to advertise their puppies before they are chipped but dont have swish websites and rarely breed in comparison to the big boys. Not sure how Victorian chip laws are written and Im too busy to look but does the law say the pup has to be chipped at point of sale and is there a requirement for the breeder details to be entered or can the first owner be listed as the person who purchased the pup? It will also be interesting to see how they will work the pet shops too - does the pet shop have to purchase puppies already chipped or can they chip at time of sale to the new owner ? How will this slow down those who are providing puppies to pet shops either way? if breeders in Victoria have to include chip numbers in their advertisements which are not implanted until we are sure the pup is going to live and it is big enough to cope this in fact places Victorian breeders at a trade disadvantage as interstate breeders can advertise their pups at any time and sell to anyone who resides in Victoria without the chip number having to be provided. Will be interesting to see how many ILLEGAL puppy farms are found and prosecuted in comparison to those which have been to date. Legal commercial breeders should be cheering - registered breeders,back yard breeders and small cross bred breeders who have not applied for a DA and have not obtained approval to breed dogs from their property should have a bit of sweat on their face. Its a given that Vicdogs are exempt from needing a domestic animal business licence if they dont have more than 10 fertile dogs but any one whether you are Vicdogs or not who has more than 2 dogs and uses one for breeding requires a DA from their council and without it they are the illegal ones. RSPCA now has the ability to enforce council by laws and operate outside of POCTA without outside accountablility. We certainly have moved into interesting times with those who are operating illegally without council approval having to make choices or risk all - here is hoping the epidemic of filthy illegal puppy farmers who are so abundant that we required laws which would radically affect all breeders in that state just give up and dont move interstate , or hide out better or become legal large scale commercial breeders. Lets hope that puppy farmers in other states dont see this as an opportunity to take up the slack and replace the markets for all of those illegal puppy farms which will no longer be able to breed and for the small breeders who feel its all too hard to have a litter of puppies now and then. In the mean time legal commercial breeders hit the jackpot. My advice to all Victorian breeders whether you breed one or lots is to check with your local council to see what YOU need to do to be operating legally in your shire. Dont assume you dont need to do anything if you are Vicdogs and have less than 10 fertile dogs. Do not assume that the definition of puppy farmer which is being used at government and RSPCA level is only petinent to those who breed commercially or that you are not compelled to be operating under a mandatory code which covers housing, vaccinations etc. if you breed dogs in Victoria and you dont have a vet vaccinate your dogs every year you are illegal - dont assume you will be exempt - you are not.

This is true however, bitches are pregnant for 9 weeks after they have been on heat for 2 weeks rear their young for 8 = 19 weeks - even if they came on heat in the next 8 weeks which they dont = 27 weeks + on heat for 2 weeks before fertile = 29 weeks + 9 weeks pregnant = 38 weeks + 8 weeks to rear = 46 weeks . Squeezing in two litters per year is a hard ask let alone 3 or 4.

We also need to judge people on facts and not guesses.

mostly 2 years in advance here

Cool thanks for your reply I dont know much abt the registration to diff councils ect. But what if your a member of the CCC and you have a permit from you local council, reg with your breed club ect but not reg with the ankc? Are you still considered unethical? Sorry just curious, there seems to be so many different organisations breeders can register with these days. And at the end of the day even though these responsible breeders do all the necessary health checks ect things can sometimes still go wrong with a pup i guess. I am always wary of a breeder who says their pups will never have health problems. I have always been curious to know on average which fair better in the long run, a heinz variety or a purebreed dog? There is nothing wrong with either, i love all dogs but it would be very interesting to see stats on health probs of mutts ect vs purebreeds. Just out of pure curiosity lol You are right anyone can be registered with any number of bodies and call themselves registered - so its about who they are registered with and what criteria they needed in order to become registered and stay registered with those they are registered with but if you are looking for a purebred dog its about whether the dogs pedigree or birth certificate is registered with an organisation which is keeping stud records as this is evidence the dog has been bred using parents which are of a particular breed. Lots of people make lots of assumptions about what one grou can and cant do or what they have to do according to their codes of conduct which is not true .lots of people make assumptions about how to best tell a reputable breeder in one group from a non reputable breeder in the same group which is what we are seeing here - most of which is based on things which dont really have much basis in fact.

Just to let you know ethical breeders do also advertise on the sites you quoted. I know because I am one of them. :D Me too - I even advertise in places like this when I dont have puppies and I encourage all responsible registered breeders to do the same. Sometimes registered breeders call other registered breeders back yard breeders or puppy farmers because they dont approve of what they think the breeder is doing. Deciding you have a problem breeder based on what some other breeder told you is not always an accurate assessment. Sometimes breeders do describe their registered pedigree papers as birth certificates - thats exactly what they are. If a breeder offers you a puppy which is not an ANKC registered pup and sells it to you in the beleif it is when it isnt - thats fraud and against the law .Go to the police. If the breeder is breeding both ANKC registered and non ANKC registered and you want Troy to rub them out because of this - that is virtually impossible for someone who simply runs an advertising service to police or investigate fairly and its not against the rules or codes of the ANKC anyway as long as they are not breeding their ANKC registered dogs to produce unregistered puppies. Bit silly to ask Troy to stop it when he isnt responsible for ensuring people who are members of the states CCs are remaining within their regs. If you have really found a registered breeder who is selling puppies from their ANKC registered dogs and they are not registering the puppies then its not Troy you need to be worrying about - Why not go to the state CC and ask them to investigate and have the breeder removed from the membership. If all you have found is a registered breeder who is not testing their parent stock or who is not showing their dogs then a hell of a lot of people who advertise here would be gone.

Some peope who are dumping their pets also tell lies. When I was doing Corgi rescue years ago I had almost exactly this situation . Lady said she couldnt keep her dog any longer as she was moving to a retirement home which didnt allow it. When I got the dog home it was easy to see why it couldnt go to the home with her because it NEVER EVER SHUT UP. It ran up and down the fence all day long and even drove us nuts when we bought it inside- it had always been an outside dog and yelled to get out and piddled everywhere. It was clear Harry couldnt go to anyone else so he stayed here for 8 years until he died but it took him about two years to get the message and keep quiet for a few hours a day.

Ive put a lot of work and science into my beagles and its very rare now to be able to pick one or the other with different characteristics or traits to any other in the litter. You can come here to look and one pup may appproach you before the others but tomorrow it will be another. If I try to find some small thing which will make one more suitable than another for a particular home its almost impossible to do. The difference in the beagles is the markings and how they look rather than having to be too concerned about which one will match which family.Once you work out the family is good to go with a beagle the rest is simply a case of which goes where after I pick the one I want. The Maremmas are a slightly different story and with them I agree with espinay. You can come and look at a litter where every pup in a litter of a dozen appears to be identical and whether or not the pup comes up to you or hides away has different meanings with this breed to any other. So the owners tell me what they want it for and I choose every time.

Perhaps we are reading a different paper but I followed your link and it specifies quote. This is the first large study comparing mill survivors to dogs raised in homes. I cant see the word commercial in there nor can I see anything which relates to the motivations of those who were breeding these dogs. Is there another part of the study which Ive missed? If they continuously mention puppy mill dogs then why wouldnt the definition of what a puppy mill is be entered into it?